Talk:Laurell K. Hamilton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] User response?

Should anything be put down about LKH & her crew banning anyone from her message board that posts any negative comments about her writing? It's an automatic ban if you say anything negative in the slightest, & the very few that remain find their accounts "mysteriously slower". Many of her older fans have dropped their support of this & I believe that her fan controversey section needs to be widened to include fan response. I'm trying to find a credible site to use as a reference, since it's likely that it could be removed otherwise by die hard fans. (The right to critique is really becoming a battlefield when it comes to LKH's books!)Tokyogirl79 04:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

lkh has only visted her own forum once(unless otherwise announce)
I wasn't referring to LKH herself doing the deleting. I was saying that there are MODS that were deleting the posts. While I can certainly understand that they would want to delete the out & out malicious posts, I knew one or two people who were merely debating some parts that they didn't like... and were deleted for it b/c LKH didn't like the criticism. I see, though, that someone has already done something of this nature to the article, so I'm satisfied. Personally I LIKE her books. They do push the button a lot & have more sex than plot, but they're still enjoyable. What I don't like is her response to her fans & how anyone who has a criticism is "evil".Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Very nearly a B. I'd like to see dispute(s) cleared up and maybe a photo.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Criticism and the Author's response

It actually duplicates the content of Anita_Blake:_Vampire_Hunter_(series). One discussion or the other should probably be removed. 82.33.75.53 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't fight -- merge!

I see there is a revert war going on between User:68.224.177.5 and RickK. Rather than reverting each other, I would suggest that you combine the material contained in both texts, format it for Wiki use for better readability, and also ensure that it's not violating any copyrights. More material is good, but it should be accurate, originally composed (or released by the author under GFDL), and presented in decent paragraphs with proper Wiki formatting. I'd do it myself, but I don't have access to the source materials that are being fought over. — Jeff Q 06:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After the anonymous user dumped their text in yet again (which appears to be vaguely related to the official bio), I have attempted to re-write it and incorporate it into the flow of the article. Maybe this will stop whoever it is who so desperately needs to spread the word as to Laurell K. Hamilton's favourite films :-) --Phil | Talk 18:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Yaaargh! More crap from the same user and I got hit with an edit conflict and my firewall timed me out 8-( Try again tomorrow. --Phil | Talk 18:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Life vs. writing

I was just looking at this quote "There has been conjecture about how Hamilton's divorce affected her writing and the amount of sex therein, but Hamilton has indicated that this is not necessarily true, instead citing her increased antagonism towards how people feel a woman "should" write and what topics are "right." Since sex is often seen as something women are not allowed to enjoy much less write about, the sex rate has increased." from the article.

I wonder if it's considered 'opinion' if i added in something to the effect that she based the character of Anita blake on herself (which she's mentioned multiple times on her personal blog) and the character of Richard on her ex-husband, Gary, which she's also mentioned in an early early interview?

There's also a theory called . F.R.E.D that's been floating around her forum about this divorce vs. books issue. Are we allowed to mention it but not validate it?

thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicornssong (talk • contribs) 21:05, March 14, 2006 (UTC)

Is this really appropriate for an encyclopedia? Just wondering where fandom leaves off and encyclopedic content begins. JenKilmer 06:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Micah, standalone?

I don't feel that Micah is as much stand-alone as it is a breather from the main plot. It certainly fits the timeline. It as as much part of the "series" as Obsidian Butterfly is.... (I haven't quite finished it, but from what I have read, it fits right after Incubus Dreams). Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex and Change in the Anita Blake Series

I'm thinking this section belongs more in the Anita Blake Series article. It gives a bit of an overview of how the series has developed (more involvement with monster society and politics, more sex, more magic, et cetera). Shall I move it over? JenKilmer 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misquote/misleading summary

Ideally, only direct quotes appear in quotation marks - not interpretation. The summary of the 'Dear Negative Reader' article was not NPOV.

Similarly, whoever added the Anne Rice contribution: the statement about major retail stores considering etc. would be very interesting, if there was a source attached. Ditto critics' responses, with citation. However, is 'many fans think she sold out' really a wikipedia-worthy assertion? If there's a neutral manner of stating these facts they are quite interesting (many great papers could be written about online fans/critics, so I can see why it is tempting to discuss it here), but as it is this approaches original research... 82.33.75.53 22:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually yes, the fact that a very vocal portion of her readership feels that way is noteworthy since they have documented their feelings in forums, reviews and so on. Further, her remarkable reproach to them in her "Dear negative reader" letter makes their comments and assertions even more noteworthy. Even her fans who like the explicit direction her fiction has taken do not dispute that she has alienated a large portion of her readership. Had Hamilton not written that astonishing letter, I'd say maybe the section shouldn't be there. However, she validated the discontent of her readership by choosing to address it so publicly. If Stephen king had written a letter like that to his fans, it would have been on the front page of the New York Times. What had been a trend in her fan reviews and forums became major news through her letter.Lisapollison 04:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As stated, it's interesting, if sourced, factual and relevant. Her letter is therefore interesting enough to merit a mention. I'm not sure it should be seen as validating, or NYT-worthy (unless it was in fact mentioned in the NYT?). Actually, I have a great deal of sympathy with the 'vocal portion' (especially given the page counts of a couple of her most recent books... bah) - but Wikipedia just isn't the right venue for anything but sourced factual information. Vague, accusatory colloquialism ('sold out'), original interpretation or assertion is uninteresting, because it quickly falls out of NPOV, and the section becomes a soapbox for opinion and therefore reads badly. That fan comments are worth discussion does not mean that they should be repeated verbatim... At the time of editing, the page - understandably, but inappropriately - read as though it were written by someone either hurt or indignant or both. 82.33.75.53 14:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
82.33.75.53, I understand how you feel, however, it is the actions of the author in this case that make her fans' comments noteworthy. She chose to address them directly and in an extraordinary manner. I'll keep an eye on that section to make sure nothing inflammatory gets added, but honestly, if anything, the article understates the matter significantly. Her letter was quite something. I believe its best to leave it as it is unless one side or the other chooses to further the debate in print. The only exception is that unsourced statement about some stores wanting to put her books under a different section based on the new sexual content. If it's just rumor, it should go. If we can find a bookseller who said that in print, it should stay. I welcome you to register with Wikipedia and join the horror project or the romance project so that you can help other editors monitor potential POV issues. ISP addys can change based on what server you use (such as AOL) and having a Username with a history of solid edits can be helpful in gathering a consensus on article changes.LiPollis 17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (I changed my Signature recently from LisaPollison)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Guilty Pleasures.png

Image:Guilty Pleasures.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subjective Mode?

What is meant by "eschews the use of the subjective mode" in the "Hamilton-esque" section? Is this a reference to Subjective case vs Nominative case? What's the source for this? JenKilmer 04:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is supposed to read "subjunctive". She never (ever) writes the equivalent of: I wish I were. She always says: I wish I was. If you are postulating something you are supposed to use the subjunctive mood. I am not sure where the word "subjective" came from. I thought I put it in right the first time but there has been someone messing about with the page as always. Parsnip13 13:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I usually think the author over does the vanity on her website by using an old picture, but I think perhaps wiki is going too far in the other direction by using the worlds most unflattering picture of LKH. Could we get a picture that's a little more neutral where the lights aren't casting vast shadows that make her head look like some kind of frankenstein monster?-- 64.50.201.98 (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There's an alternate image from the same event at Image:Hamilton, Laurell K (2007) 2.jpg, but I wouldn't say that it's any better, really. If you can find another freely-licensed photograph to replace the ones we have, please do so :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the photo is quite that awful but I'm sure a fan somewhere has a better one. The current photo isn't as bad as described above but I do feel that an imperfection in the photo on what would be the left side of her face (her left, not ours) makes it seem as if she has an enormous wart or zit on her upper cheek. I do hope someone uploads a better one. it would have to be one they took themseleves though since the author considers this article to be unflattering and is therefore highly unlikely to permit use of any official photos.LiPollis (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? She considers this to be unflattering? I have to say that this is one of the most non-partial web entries I've seen based around her. Most of them are either "ZOMG, LKH is teh evil!!1!" or they're "ZOMG, LKH is teh greatest!!1!". While I understand that everyone wants to look good, LKH needs to understand that her past remarks aren't going to be ignored. Still, all of this controversey is why I really like reading her books. The controversey is more entertaining than the books themselves are. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79


[edit] "Hamilton-esque" Balance

I flagged the "Hamilton-esque" section unbalanced for the following reasons:

Subjectively, it reads like a love letter from a publicist. May I suggest the following for credibility?

Objectively: 1st graf: Publishers asking for "Hamilton-esque" pieces. Cite? (besides LKH herself) 2nd graf: Cite for comparison to Parker? First person detective fiction goes back to Dashiell Hammett's vaunted Sam Spade books. 2nd graf: Cite for comparison to Stephen King? 5th graf: Largely redundant to 2nd graf.

AJay1954 (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is...ridiculous. Two citations and it uses overly-praising terminology to make Hamilton appear godlike. I'm removing this entire section and suggesting we make the body of the page work in the useful bits. 70.170.69.199 (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That stuff needs to come out in my opinion. LKH was hardly the first genre novelist to mix romance/sex and the paranormal and she certainly isn't any high water mark in the field. She's notable within her field and so some detail is warranted but this Hamilton-esque nonsense comes right from her own inner circle. The cited sources aren't up to snuff for that kind of lavish praise. If Publisher's Weekly said it or maybe even LOCUS, yeah, but that's not what we have here. Please, let's take it out and tone down the hero-worship. LiPollis (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Remove: Agree w/ Lisapollison. Laurell K may be somewhat of a name in the fantasy world, but I've never heard anyone use the world 'Hamilton-esque' to describe any other works of fiction & I'm pretty knowledgable of most of the urban fantasy authors & titles. To be completely honest, Laurell K is no longer considered even the brass ring standard that authors need to live up to. She's long since been considered a joke by other authors such as Mary Janice Davidson. I've never heard any magazine, publishing company, or author (other than Laurell K herself) use the term Hamilton-esque at all. I believe that this is just a term coined by the author & her inner circle to describe their views on similar books. It's purely subjective & I think that it should be removed entirely. Unless someone can show a real magazine or internet site mentioning it, I say it should be removed & kept off. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
I also just wanted to add one more point. The only article that mentions "Hamiltonesque" is a BLOG entry that mentions LKH herself saying that. The other articles focus around vampire books in general. Just b/c other people write vamp books doesn't mean that they are drawing on LKH's books as inspiration. The whole section seems to be in place to make LKH seem like she's the goddess of urban fantasy & that she created the entire genre. Other authors have done similarly themed works, so why is it only LKH that gets the credit for this? Neil Gaiman has written some of the earliest & most notable works in the UF genre (which some of LKH's work has been somewhat similar to), so why don't we write it as "Gaiman-esque"? As much as I like her, LKH is NOT a pioneer of this field, nor is she the first female writer to write UF. I insist that this section be removed. Wikipedia is not a place for vanity puff pieces. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79